State Of Hy vs Rajinder Parshad
2022 Latest Caselaw 14341 P&H

CRA-S-750-SB of 2005                                       [1]

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH
                           CRA-S-750-SB of 2005
                           Date of Decision: 15th November, 2022

State of Haryana
                                                                  Appellant
                                     Versus

Rajinder Parshad
                                                                 Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:    Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.
            Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate for the respondent.
                         ***

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (Oral):

1. The State has filed the appeal against acquittal of Rajinder

Parshad (respondent) in FIR No. 15 dated 13.5.2002, under Sections 7 and

13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station

State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon.

2. As per the case set up by the prosecution, complainant- Ganesh

Sharma made a complaint on 13.5.2002 to the Vigilance Department. It was

alleged that he visited the office of SDO-I of Electricity Department with

regard to release of 20 KV electric connection for his plot situated in

Kadipur Industrial Area, Gurgaon. He was asked to submit fresh test report

though he had already submitted the test report. He met the respondent

posted as Junior Engineer, who demanded Rs.20,000/- as illegal

gratification for releasing the electric connection. He told the complainant

to pay Rs.9,000/- immediately and remaining Rs.11,000/- after one or two

days. Acting on the complaint, raiding team was constituted. PW2- Naib

Tehsildar Man Mohan was appointed for the purpose. PW7-Aman Kumar,

1 of 6

CRA-S-750-SB of 2005 [2]

Head Constable was the shadow witness. Eighteen currency notes of

Rs.500/- each were laced with Phenolphthalein Powder and initialled. The

shadow witness was directed to give signal to the raiding party on

acceptance of the illegal gratification. On receiving the signal, the raiding

party recovered the tainted currency from the drawer of the table of the

respondent. One receipt No. 16, book No. 2503 dated 3.3.2002 pertaining to

Roop Chand was also seized. On the said receipt book, the tainted currency

was put. On washing the receipt with Sodium Carbonate solution, the

colour turned pink.

3. The prosecution to prove its case examined nine witnesses.

4. The respondent in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

pleaded false implication and stated that the SDO had marked the

application of the complainant to him and he had submitted his report

raising objections. It was further stated that he was lifted from his office

and later was implicated in the false case.

5. In his defence, the respondent examined four witnesses.

6. It was considered by trial Court that the laced currency was

recovered from the drawer of the table of the respondent. He had not

touched the tainted money. PW1-Ganesh Sharma deposed that hands of the

respondent were also washed, whereas the statements of PW2-Man Mohan

Naib Tehsildar, PW7-Aman Kumar (shadow witness) and PW9-Dhan Singh

DSP (Investigating Officer) were to the contrary. DW4-Daljit Singh, SDO,

Electricity Department deposed that the drawer of the table from which the

laced currency notes were recovered was accessible to every one. Further

that the complainant had not approached DW4 (SDO) with a complaint of

2 of 6

CRA-S-750-SB of 2005 [3]

demand of illegal gratification made by the respondent. It was also noted

that statements of PW1 and PW7 that the complainant had put the money in

the drawer of the table of the respondent on his asking was an improvement

from the previous statements (Ex. DA and Ex. DF). Reliance was placed by

the trial court on the decision of the Supreme Court that recovery of the

tainted currency in itself does not prove the acceptance of illegal

gratification.

7. The trial court also considered the discrepancies in the

testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. PW1-complainant stated that

tainted money was lifted from the drawer of the table of the respondent by

Naib Tehsildar. To the same effect was the statement of PW2-Naib

Tehsildar but the shadow witness deposed that the laced currency was taken

out by DSP-Dhan Singh from the drawer. The complainant stated that the

raiding party reached the office of Complaint Centre at 3.00 pm and stayed

there for fifteen minutes. His signatures on the documents were obtained in

the office of Vigilance Department, Gurgaon, whereas PW7 and PW9 stated

that all proceedings were conducted at the spot and raiding party stayed

there for two hours approximately.

8. As per PW2, two persons were present in the Complaint

Centre whereas as per the shadow witness, the respondent was alone. DW2-

Surender Singh, LDC, deposed that duty of the respondent was to submit

the report and he could not sanction or decline release of the electric

connection. To the similar effect was the statement of DW4-Daljit Singh

SDO. It was noted that as per prosecution bribe was demanded for release

of electric connection, the respondent was not having authority to release

3 of 6

CRA-S-750-SB of 2005 [4]

the connection. The respondent was acquitted vide judgment dated

16.7.2004.

9. Learned counsel for the State argues that the trial court erred in

acquitting the respondent in spite of the fact that laced currency notes were

recovered from the drawer of his table and the complainant and shadow

witness supported the case of prosecution. They deposed that on asking of

the respondent, the money was put in the drawer. It is argued that

submission of the report by the respondent was prerequisite for the release

of the connection.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned

judgment. He submits that the respondent prior to the raid had raised an

objection on 5.5.2002 with regard to the test report submitted by the

complainant. In pursuance to the objection raised by the respondent, notice

(Ex. DD) was issued by S.D.O. The contention is that it was a case of false

implication as the respondent had raised objection on the test report

submitted by the complainant.

11. The scope of interference in judgment of acquittal is well

settled.

11.1 In Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9)

Supreme Court Cases 479, the Supreme Court after considering various

judgments laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a

judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:

"8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate

4 of 6

CRA-S-750-SB of 2005 [5]

court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to reappreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed."

11.2 A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa

Singh, 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against

acquittal, has opined:

"We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble

5 of 6

CRA-S-750-SB of 2005 [6]

Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference."

12. The trial court considered the facts and examined the evidence

threadbare. The reasons recorded are in consonance with the depositions

made by the prosecution witnesses. It is not the case of prosecution that

money was recovered from the respondent. DW4 deposed that everyone had

accessibility to the drawer of the table from which the tainted currency was

recovered. No hand wash test of the respondent was conducted. The

respondent was not having the capacity to sanction or deny the electric

connection. He was Junior Engineer and his duty was only to submit the

report. It is not the case of prosecution that he demanded illegal

gratification for submitting his report or for deleting the objection already

raised by him on the earlier report submitted by the complainant. The

acceptance of bribe cannot be proved when recovery itself is doubtful.

13. No case of legal or factual error much less perversity is made

out for interference by this court in the judgment of acquittal.

14. The appeal is dismissed.

                                              [AVNEESH JHINGAN]
                                                   JUDGE
15th November, 2022
mk
             1. Whether speaking/ reasoned           :     Yes
             2. Whether reportable                   :     Yes




                                     6 of 6